The SSPX (without a flamewar)

[goout]

Protests have been with us from the beginning.
They come and they go.

Obedience is exhilarating and liberating. Protests are boring.

 

[dochawk]

Otherwise it would be like taking the convict’s word over the evidence and the judge’s decry.

Hey, check any prison–90% will tell you that they’re innocent!

(more seriously, the criminal element generally doesn’t see the connection between the crime and the arrest; they see getting popped as simply bad luck!)

hawk, esq.

 

[kill051]

Forgive me if this has been addressed already in this thread (I just can’t face reading 295 posts!), but I don’t see a heck of a lot of difference between SSPX and Protestants. At the most basic level, they both deny the primacy of the Pope, Rome, and anything they don’t personally agree with. The big similarity I see between SSPX and Protestants is: disobedience. Each group wants to be the rulers of their destinies, rather than submitting to the authority of the Magisterium and the Holy Father in Rome. If I am mistaken, please explain to me where. Thanks.

 

[Fauken]

At the most basic level, they both deny the primacy of the Pope, Rome, and anything they don’t personally agree with.

Not true. The SSPX do not deny the primacy of the Papacy. They hold Pope Francis to be the duly elected Bishop of Rome and their Holy Father. If you remember that Fraternal Correction letter published many months ago, one of the signatories is Bishop Fellay, the former superior of the SSPX. And in it, all of the undersigned acknowledged him as the Pope. The best way I can describe their disobedience is as follows:

“I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as how it’s a stupid *** decision, I’ve elected to ignore it.”
– Nick Fury

Quotes aside, quite simply, they view that Vatican II was a pastoral council, rather than infallible. Since it’s not infallible, it’s not binding, so all the things the council came out with are not binding.

 

[kill051]

Thanks for explaining. I must be confused. I had thought SSPX were sedevacantist, but apparently they are not. I will have to do some serious research on the topic. Thanks again.

 

[Fauken]

Thanks for explaining. I must be confused. I had thought SSPX were sedevacantist, but apparently they are not. I will have to do some serious research on the topic. Thanks again.

No problem! It’s a common misunderstanding. They are also sometimes mistaken for the similarly named Society of St. Pius V (SSPV), which is sedevacantist. They broke off from the SSPX believing they were basically too liberal and not going far enough.

 

[kill051]

Ah, that must be where I got confused. I’ll be back when I’ve educated myself properly!

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Great post but bad meme.

 

[Fauken]

If there was a censored version of the quote in a meme, I’d have used it. You think I should just get rid of it and turn it into a block quote?

 

[Margaret_Ann]

Please. It scares me.

 

[Fauken]

I fixed it.

 

[goout]

“I recognize the council has made a decision, but seeing as how it’s a stupid *** decision, I’ve elected to ignore it.”
– Nick Fury

This exposes the issue quite well.
The faithful do not ignore the Magisterium when it speaks.

 

[Lormar]

How is it that this thread is still going and my thread, in which I asked a simple question - is it a sin to attend weekly Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel - was unceremoniously locked and deleted?

 

[MockSock]

How is it that this thread is still going and my thread, in which I asked a simple question - is it a sin to attend weekly Sunday Mass at an SSPX chapel - was unceremoniously locked and deleted?

I’m wondering the same thing. I asked a question about the Trinity and that thread was quickly locked down, even after I explicitly stated at least three times that I didn’t want an argument but was simply looking for clarification.

 

[commenter]

The big similarity I see between SSPX and Protestants is: disobedience.

Many Protestants regard the local Catholic bishop ordinary as a valid spiritual leader, a helpful guide - perhaps for all Christians. They may agree with him at times. But they don’t obey him. Same with SSPX.

 

[Fauken]

Many Protestants regard the local Catholic bishop ordinary as a valid spiritual leader, a helpful guide - perhaps for all Christians. They may agree with him at times. But they don’t obey him. Same with SSPX.

To play Devil’s Advocate, let me ask you this. Outside of matters of faith and morals, must I do everything the Pope asks me to do?

 

[commenter]

Quotes aside, quite simply, they view that Vatican II was a pastoral council, rather than infallible. Since it’s not infallible, it’s not binding, so all the things the council came out with are not binding.

None of current bishops ordinary cast a vote at Vatican 2, nor Pope Francis. Is it possible that thousands of bishops and popes over the last 50 years have issued nothing but “pastoral” decrees, which the SSPX feels ok to ignore?

 

[Fauken]

None of current bishops ordinary cast a vote at Vatican 2, nor Pope Francis. Is it possible that thousands of bishops and popes over the last 50 years have issued nothing but “pastoral” decrees, which the SSPX feels ok to ignore?

Sure, it’s entirely possible. Where in the Deposit of Faith does it say that the Magisterium must churn out such binding pronouncements on a frequent basis?

 

[commenter]

commenter:

Many Protestants regard the local Catholic bishop ordinary as a valid spiritual leader, a helpful guide - perhaps for all Christians. They may agree with him at times. But they don’t obey him. Same with SSPX.

To play Devil’s Advocate, let me ask you this. Outside of matters of faith and morals, must I do everything the Pope asks me to do?

You did not specify if you are a Protestant, or SSPX, but the answer is the same for those 2 categories. You don’t have to anything the pope asks you to do, even if it does refer to faith and morals. They are both in a separate denomination. And that is how both Protestant and SSPX act in real life. They both would deny they are “disobedient”, this is not even a category that (in their view) applies to them at all. (Would a Methodist minister feel he is being “disobedient” to the local Catholic bishop?)

The SSPX priests of, say 40 years ago, were primarily Catholic church men in direction, who had worked in the Church itself, under bishops ordinary, far more than they worked in SSPX. The SSPX was less important to them, just a means to an end. That generation is mostly gone.

Today, the SSPX priests, except for a few elderly men, never worked in the Church, itself. Their direction is really only SSPX, as an end in itself. Whether the pope or their bishop’s new statement is “Faith and Morals”, or merely “Pastoral”, is irrelevant since they are in a different system. A “Faith and Morals” statement (by pope and bishop) does not have any more authority than a “pastoral” one. A “Faith and Morals” statement by SSPX might have authority, unless they were in the SSPX Resistance.

 

[Fauken]

You did not specify if you are a Protestant, or SSPX, but the answer is the same for those 2 categories. You don’t have to anything the pope asks you to do, even if it does refer to faith and morals. They are both in a separate denomination. And that is how both Protestant and SSPX act in real life. They both would deny they are “disobedient”, this is not even a category that (in their view) applies to them at all. (Would a Methodist minister feel he is being “disobedient” to the local Catholic bishop?)

I’m neither. If anything, I’m a traditional Catholic who attends Masses celebrated by the FSSP, who are in good standing. The difference between that Methodist Bishop and an SSPX one is that the SSPX one acknowledges the Pope as the Bishop of Rome and head of the Church. The Methodist one does not.

The SSPX was less important to them, just a means to an end.

I’ll agree with that.

Today, the SSPX priests, except for a few elderly men, never worked in the Church, itself.

Correction: they’ve never worked in the Church in good standing. Their situation is canonically irregular, but not schismatic, unlike your Methodist example.

Whether the pope or their bishop’s new statement is “Faith and Morals”, or merely “Pastoral”, is irrelevant since they are in a different system. A “Faith and Morals” statement (by pope and bishop) does not have any more authority than a “pastoral” one. A “Faith and Morals” statement by SSPX might have authority, unless they were in the SSPX Resistance.

Oh no, that’s not true! There is a difference between ex cathedra and a pastoral decision! Pastoral deals with application, ex cathedra is the fact behind the application.